On 6/16/2010 5:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 17:22 -0400, David Boles wrote: >> On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >>> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:20 -0400, David Boles wrote: >>>> Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have >>>> to use a 32bit browser. >>> >>> Not so. I use 64-bit Chromium and 32-bit Flash works with it. In fact >>> I'm guessing that any browser that sandboxes plugins in separate >>> processes should work. >> >> >> >> Gene uses 64-bit Firefox, I think, and he was using the 64bit Flash. I >> gave him the link. Naively. The 32-bit Flash will work with Firefox and >> a wrapper. He did not ask about that. >> >> As for Chromium? This thread was not about Chromium but I'll take your >> word on that. > > It wasn't about Firefox either. Hmm... Good point. But I know Gene and I answered it with personal knowledge in mind. But you are correct. >> I tried it and did not like it. > > Fair enough, but I wasn't trying to push Chromium as such. I did not mean to imply that you had. Linux is all about choice. And using what works for you. -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
